Sunday, August 2, 2015

Brhadaranyaka Upanishad : Sambandha bhashya

Section I - Meditation on the Horse-Sacrifice

[Page 1] Om. Salutation to Brahman (Hiraṇyagarbha[1]) and the other sages forming the line of teachers who have handed down the knowledge of Brahman. Salutation to our own teacher.

With the words, ‘The head of the sacrificial horse is the dawn,’ etc. begins the Upaniṣad connected with the Vājasaneyi-Brāhmaṇa. This concise commentary is being written on it to explain to those who wish to turn away from this relative world (Saṃsāra), the knowledge of the identity of the individual self and Brahman, which is the means of eradicating the cause of this world (ignorance). This knowledge of Brahman is called ‘Upaniṣad’ because it entirely removes this relative world together with its cause from those who betake themselves to this study, for the root ‘sad’ prefixed by ‘upa’ and ‘ni’ means that. Books also are called Upaniṣads as they have the same end in view.

This Upaniṣad consisting of six chapters is called ‘Āraṇyaka’ as it was taught in the forest (Araṇya). And because of its large size it is called Bṛhadāraṇyaka. Now we are going to describe its relation to the ceremonial portion of the Vedas. The whole of the Vedas is devoted to setting forth the means of attaining what is good and avoiding what is evil, in so far as these [Page 2] are not known through perception and inference, for all people naturally seek these two ends. In matters coming within the range of experience, a knowledge of the means of attaining the good and avoiding the evil ends is easily available through perception and inference. Hence the Vedas are not to be sought for that. Now, unless a person is aware of the existence of the self in a future life, he will not be induced to attain what is good and avoid what is evil in that life. For we have the example of the materialists. Therefore the scriptures proceed to discuss the existence of the self in a future life and the particular means of attaining the good and avoiding the evil in that life. For we see one of the Upaniṣads starts with the words, ‘There is a doubt among men regarding the life after death, some saying that the self exists, and others that it does not’ (Ka. I. 20), and concludes, ‘It is to be realised as existing indeed’ (Ka. VI. 13), and so on. Also, beginning with, ‘How (the self remains) after death’ (Ka. V. 6), it ends with, ‘Some souls enter the womb to get a new body, while others are born, as stationary objects (plants etc.), all according to their past work and knowledge’ (Ka. V. 7). Elsewhere beginning with, ‘The man (self) himself becomes the light’ (IV. iii. 9), it ends with, ‘It is followed by knowledge, work’ (IV. iv. 2). Also, ‘One becomes good through good work and evil through evil work’ (III. ii. 13). Again beginning with, ‘I will instruct you’ (II. i. 15), the existence of the extracorporeal self is established in the passage, ‘Full of consciousness (i.e. identified with the mind),’ etc. (II. i. 16-17).

Reply: No, for we see the divergence of opinion among different schools. Were the existence of the self in a future body a matter of perception, the materialists and Buddhists would not stand opposed to us, saying that there is no self. For nobody disputes regarding an object of perception such as a jar, saying it does not exist.

Objection: You are wrong, since a stump, for instance, is looked upon as a man and so on.

Reply: No, for it vanishes when the truth is known. There are no more contradictory views when the stump, for instance, has been definitely known as such through perception. The Buddhists, however, in spite of the fact that there is the ego-consciousness, persistently deny the existence of the self other than the subtle body.[2] Therefore, being different from objects of perception, the existence of the self cannot be proved by this means. Similarly inference too is powerless.

Objection: No, since the Śruti (Veda) points out certain grounds of inference[3] for the existence of the self, and these depend on perception, (these two are also efficient means of the knowledge of the self).

Reply: Not so, for the self cannot be perceived as having any relation to another life. But when its existence has been known from the Śruti and from [Page 2] certain empirical grounds of inference cited by it, the Mīmāṃsakas and logicians, who follow in its footsteps, fancy that those Vedic grounds of inference such as the ego-consciousness are the products of their own mind, and declare that the self is knowable through perception and inference.

In any case, a man who believes that there is a self which gets into relation with a future body, seeks to know the particular means of attaining the good and avoiding the evil in connection with that body. Hence the ceremonial portion of the Vedas is introduced to acquaint him with these details. But the cause of that desire to attain the good and avoid the evil, viz. ignorance regarding the Self, which expresses itself as the idea of one’s being the agent and experiencer, has not been removed by its opposite, the knowledge of the nature of the self as being identical with Brahman. Until that is removed, a man prompted by such natural defects of his as attachment or aversion to the fruits' of his actions, proceeds to act even against the injunctions and prohibitions of the scriptures, and under the powerful urge of his natural defects accumulates in thought, word and deed a good deal of work known as iniquity, producing harm, visible and invisible. This leads to degradation down to the state of stationary objects. Sometimes the impressions made by the scriptures are very strong, in which case he accumulates in thought, word and deed a great deal of what is known as good work which contributes to his well-being. This work is twofold: that attended with meditation, and that which is mechanical. Of these, the latter results in the attaiment [Page 5] of the world of the Manes and so on; while work coupled with meditation leads to worlds beginning with that of the gods and ending with the world of Hiraṇyagarbha.[4] The Śruti says on the point, ‘One who sacriñces to the Self is better than one who sacrifices to the gods,’ etc. (Ś. XI. ii. 6. 13, adapted). And the Smṛti: ‘Vedic work is twofold,’ etc. (M. XII. 88).

When the good work balances the evil, one becomes a man. Thus the transmigration beginning with the state of Hiraṇyagarbha and the rest and ending with that of stationary objects, which a man with his natural defects of ignorance etc. attains through his good and bad deeds, depends on name, form and action. This manifested universe, consisting of means and ends, was in an undifferentiated state before its manifestation. That relative-universe, without beginning and end like the seed and the sprout etc., created by ignorance and consisting in a superimposition of action, its factors and its results on the Self, is an evil. Hence for the removal of the ignorance of a man who is disgusted with this universe, this Upaniṣad is being commenced in order to inculcate the knowledge of Brahman which is the very opposite of that ignorance.

The utility of this meditation concerning the horse sacrifice is this: Those who are not entitled to this sacrifice will get the same result through this meditation itself. Witness the Śruti passages: ‘Through meditation or through rites’ (Ś. X. iv. 3. 9), and ‘This (meditation on the vital force) certainty wins the world’ (I. iii. 28).

Reply: No, for the following Śruti passage allows option: ‘He who performs the horse sacrifice, or who knows it as such’ (Tai. S. V. iii. 12. 2). Since it occurs in a context dealing with knowledge, and since we see the same kind of meditation based on resemblance being applied to other rites[5] also, we understand that meditation will produce the same result. Of all rites the greatest is the horse sacrifice, for it leads to identity with Hiraṇyagarbha in his collective and individual aspects. And its mention here at the very beginning of this treatise on the knowledge of Brahman is an indication that all rites fall within the domain of relative existence. It will be shown later on that the result of this meditation is identification with Hunger or Death.

Objection: But the regular (Nitya) rites are not productive of relative results.

Reply: Not so, for the Śruti sums up the results of all rites together. Every rite is connected with the wife. In the passage, ‘Let me have a wife....... This much indeed is desire’ (I. iv. 17), it is shown that all action is naturally prompted by desire, and that the results achieved through a son, through rites and through meditation are this world, the world of the Manes and that of the gods respectively (I. v. 16), and the conclusion arrived at will be that everything consists of the three kinds of food: ‘This (universe) indeed consists of three things: name, form and [Page 7] action’ (I. vi. i). The manifested result of all action is nothing but the relative universe. It is these three which were in an undifferentiated state before manifestation. That again is manifested owing to the resultant of the actions of all beings, as a tree comes out of the seed. This differentiated and undifferentiated universe, consisting of the gross[6] and subtle worlds and their essence, falls within the category of ignorance, and has been superimposed by it on the Self as action, its factors and its results as if they were Its own form. Although the Self is different from them, has nothing to do with name, form and action, is one without a second and is eternal, pure, enlightened and free by nature, yet It appears as just the reverse of this, as consisting of differences of action, its factors and its results, and so on. Therefore for the removal of ignorance, the seed of defects such as desire and of action—like the removal of the idea of a snake from a rope—with regard to a man who is disgusted with this universe of means and ends, consisting of actions, their factors and their results— having realised that they are just so much, the knowledge of Brahman is being set forth.

The introduction to the BU in AS bhashyam is called sambandha bhashyam

Sureshwaracharya vartika on the sambandha bhashyam is also very famous called sambandha vartika contains 1000 verses!

Gist of sambandha bhashyam

Subject matter is relationship between karma kaanda & jnaanakaanda

3 main points are emphasized

1. Karma kaanda of Veda is as much as pramanam as jnana kanda or upanishad -

We should not dismiss karma kanda of Veda as ritualistic. Accepting upanishadic portion and dismissing karma kanda is not acceptable.

If we say karma kanda is said to be a pramana what does it mean? Purvamimamsaka hold a particular view : Veda karyapradhana or vidhi pradhana - in every part of the Veda some action is prescribed - wherever there are statements of fact they are arthavada apramanam unimportant

Aamnayasya kriyarthatvat aanarthakyam athatardanam- entire Veda is to enjoin action & those statements that do not enjoin action is to be ignored. Tat tvam isi is thus not important in their view.

Sidhabodhakavakyam : words containing fact

Karyabodhakavakyam : words enjoining action

Shankara refutes this with a example

The fact that jivatma survives death is a fact known from karma kanda of Veda alone

Karma kanda deals with rituals which lead to stargazing after death - if I get Svarga after death I must survive death which means death is not the end but only changing the body. This one of the facts is deha-athirikta-jiva-astitvam.

He asks if Purvamimamsaka if he accepts this or not?

If he does then he too agrees that sidhabodhakavakyam is also pramana

If he does not then the question arises why he does rituals?

For this Purvamimamsaka gives an answer - no doubt there is a jiva surviving death - but it is not revealed by Veda - this information can be gained without vedas also - by logic.

Shankara refutes reasoning - asserts that logically it can never be proven that jiva survives death

Past and future births cannot be logically established according to Shankara. We know it only through Veda pramana.

Reasoning for afterlife is not establishing logic & only supporting reasoning

Second point

Karma kanda cannot help in getting moksha

Here he takes quotations from the Br Up itself.

Highest benefit of karma kanda is brahmaloka

Brahmaloka is shown to be part of samsara

Karma being limited karmaphala is also limited.

Ashanaya

Third point

Even though karma kanda cannot give moksha we should never dismiss karma kanda as useless.

Karma kanda and jnana kanda have a special relationship - upaya upeya sambandha means end relationship

Karma kanda alone gives a person jnanayogyatvam

You have to enter the boat; cross the river; & then leave the boat at the end

Never entering the boat will not get you to the other shore

Never leaving the boat also will not get you to the shore

We need to understand the due value of karma kanda and follow according to our needs.

Karma kanda does not mean rituals alone - svadharma anushtanam. For Brahmanas it may be rituals but is different for other Varnas.. Ishwara arpana buddhi & prasada buddhi.

This is the gist of the sambandha bhashyam

TEXT
Om. Salutation to Brahman (Hiranyagarbha and the other sages forming the line of teachers who have handed down the knowledge of Brahman. Salutation to our own teacher.

With the words, ' The head of the sacrificial horse is the dawn,' etc. begins the Upani
ad connected with the Vajasaneyi-BrahmaI)a. This concise commentary
is being written on it to explain to those who wish to turn away from this relative world (Samsara), the knowledge of the identity of the individual self and Brahman, which is the means of eradicating the cause of this world (ignorance). This knowledge of Brahman is called ' Upanisad' because it entirely removes this relative world together with its cause from those who betake themselves to this study, for the root ' sad ' prefixed by 'upa' and 'ni' means that. Books also are called Upanisads as they have the same end in view.

This Upanisad consisting of six chapters is called Brhadaranyaka' as it was taught in the forest (Aranya). And because of its large size it is called Brhadaranyaka.

Now we are going to describe its relation to the ceremonial portion of the Vedas. The \vhole of the Vedas is devoted to setting forth the means of attaining what is good and avoiding what is evil, in so far as these The being identified with the cosmic mind.are not known through perception an4 inference, for all people naturally seek these two ends. In matters coming within the range of experience, a knowledge of the means of attaining the good and avoiding the evil ends is easily available through perception and inference. Hence the Vedas are not to be sought for that. Now, unless a person is aware of the existence of the self in a future life, he will not be induced to attain what is good and avoid what is evil in that life. For we have the example of the materialists. Therefore the scriptures proceed to discuss the existence of the self in a future life and the particular means of attaining the good and avoiding the evil in that life. For we see one of the Upani
ads starts with the words, There is a doubt among men regarding the life after
death, some saying that the self exists, and others that it does not' (Ka. I. 20), and concludes, I It is to be realised as existing indeed' (Ka. VI. I3), and so OD. Also, beginning with, 'How (the self remains) after death' (Ka. V. 6), it ends with, 'Some souls enter the womb to get a new body, while others are born, as stationary objects (plants etc.), all according to their past work and knowledge' (Ka. V. 7). Elsewhere beginning with, f The man (self) himself becomes the light' (IV. iii. 9), it ends with, I It is followed by knowledge, work' (IV. iv. 2). Also, r One becomes good through good work and evil through evil work ' (III. ii. 13). Again beginning with, 'i will instmct you' (II. i. IS), the existence of the extracorporeal self is established in the passage, I Full of consciousness (i.e. identified with the mind),' etc. (II. i. 16- 1 7).

Objection.' Is it not a .matter of perception?
Reply: No, for we see the divergence of opinion among different schools. Were the existence of the
self in a future body a matter of perception, the materialists and Buddhists would not stand opposed to us, saying that there is no self. For nobody disputes regarding an object of perception such as a jar, saying it does not exist.

Objection: You are wrong, since a stump, for instance, is looked upon as a man and so on.
RePly: No, for it vanishes when the truth is known. There are no more contradictory views when
the stump, for instance, has been definitely known as such through perception. The Buddhists, however, in spite of the fact that there is the ego-consciousness, persistently deny tlie existence of the self other than the subtle body. 1 Therefore, being different from objects of perception, the existence of the self cannot be proved by this means. Similarly inference too is powerless.

Objection: No, since the sruti (Veda) points out certain grounds of inference 2 for the existence of the self, and these depend on perception, (these two are also efficient means of the knowledge of the self).
Reply: Not so, for the self cannot be perceived as having any relation to another life. But when its existence has been known from the Sruti and from certain empirical grounds of inference cited by it, the Mimamsakas and logicians, who follow in its footsteps, fancy that those Vedic grounds of inference such as the ego-consciousness are the products of their own mind, and declare that the self is knowable through perception and inference.
In any case, a man who believes that there is a self which gets into relation with a future body, seeks
to know the particular means of attaining the good and avoiding the evil in connection with that body. Hence the ceremonial portion of the Vedas is introduced to acquaint him with these details. But the
cause of that desire to attain the good and avoid the evil, viz,. ignorance regarding the Self, which expresses itself as the idea of one's being the agent and experiencer, has not been removed by its opposite, the knowledge of the nature of the self as being identical with Brahman. Until that is removed, a man prompted by such natural defects of his as attachment or aversion to the fruits- of his actions, proceeds to act even against the injunctions and prohibitions of the scriptures, and under the powerful urge of his natural defects accumulates in thought, word and deed a good deal of work known as iniquity, producing harm, visible and invisible. This leads to degradation down to the state of stationary objects. Sometimes the impressions made by the scriptures are very strong, in which case he accumulates in thought, word and deed a great deal of what is known as good work which
contributes to his well-being. T1:tis work is twofold: that attended with meditation, and that which is
mechanical. Of these, the latter results in tbe attainment of the world of the Manes and so on; while work coupled with meditation leads to worlds beginning with that of the gods and ending with the world of Hiranyagarbha. 1 The Sruti says on the point, 'One who sacrifices to the Self is better than one who sacrifices to the gods, I etc. (S. XI. n. 6. 13, adapted). And the Smrti: 'Vedic work is twofold,' etc. (M. XII. 88). When the good work balances the evil, one becomes a man. Thus the transmigration beginning with the state of Hiraz:tyagarbha and the rest and ending with
that of stationary objects, which a man with his natural defects of ignorance etc. attains through his
good and bad deeds, depends on name, form and action. This manifested universe, consisting of means and ends, was in an undifferentiated state before its manifestation. That relative-universe, without beginning and end like the seed and the sprout etc., created by ignorance and consisting in a superimposition of action, its factors and its results on the Self, is an evil. Hence for the removal of the ignorance of a man who is disgusted with this universe, this Upanisad is being commenced in order to inculcate the knowledge of Brahman which is the very opposite of that ignorance.
The utility of this meditation concerning the horse sacrifice is this: '[hose who are not entitled to this
sacrifice will get the same result through this meditation itself. Witness the Sruti passages: · Through
meditation or through rites' (S. X. iv. 3. 9), and 'This (meditation on the vital force) certainly \\ins the world' (I. iii. 28).

Objection: . This meditation is just a part of the
rite.
RePly: No, for the following Sruti passage allows option: 'He who performs the horse sacrifice, or who knows it as such' (Tai. S. V. iii. 12. 2J. Since it occurs in a context dealing with knowledge, and since we see the same kind of meditation based on resemblance being applied to other rites l also, we understand that meditation will produce the same result. Of all rites the greatest is the horse sacrifice, for it leads to identity with Hiral)yagarbha in his collective and individual aspects. And its mention here at the very beginning of this treatise on the knowledge of Brahman is an indication that all rites fall within the domain of relative existence. It will be shown later on that the result of this meditation is identification with Hunger or Death.
Objection: But the regular (Nitya) rites are not productive of relative results.
RePly: Not so, for the Sruti sums up the results of aU rites together. Every rite is connected with the
\vife. In the passage, 'Let me have a wife. . . . . . . This much indeed is desire' (I. iv. 17), it is shown that aU action is naturally prompted by desire, and that the results achieved through a SOD, through rites and through meditation are this world, the world of the Manes and that of the gods respectively (I. v. 16), and the conclusion arrived at win be that everything consists of the three kinds of food: 'This (universe) indeed consists of three things: name, form and action' (I. vi. I). The manifested result of all action is nothing but the relative universe. It is these three which were in an undifferentiated sta.te before manifestation. That again is manifested owing to the resttltant of the actions of all beings, as a tree comes out of the seed. This differentiated and undifferentiated universe, consisting of the gross l and subtle worlds and their essence, falls within the category of ignorance, and has been superimposed by it on the Self as action, its factors and its results as if they were Its own fonn. Although the Self is different from them, has nothing to do with name, form and action, is one without a second and is eternal, pure, enlightened and free by nature, yet It appears as just the reverse of 1 his, as consisting of differences of action, its factors and its results, and so on. Therefore for the removal of ignorance, the seed of defects such as desire and of action-like the removal of the iijea of a snake from a rope-with regard to a man who is disgusted with this universe of means and ends, consisting of actions, their factors and their results- having realised that they are just so much, the knowledge of Brahman is being set forth. The first two sections beginning with, C The head of the sacrificial horse is the da wn, , will be devoted to the meditation regarding the horse sacrifice, The meditation about the horse is described, as the horse is the most important thing in this sacrifice. Its importance iS,indicated by the fact that the sacrifice is named